W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

Final responses to 2e comments (was Re: XML Schema 2E PER review from WSDesc WG)

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: 13 Jul 2004 18:47:24 -0600
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1089766043.2569.252.camel@localhost>

On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 10:39, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> The Web Services Description Working Group reviewed the XML 
> Schema Second Edition.  We didn't find anything to complain 
> about from the WSDL 2.0 point of view.

Thank you for this review; we apologize for this slow
response.

> However, there is an ongoing concern about the readability 
> of the specification, and one passage in particular was 
> beyond our ability to parse and understand.
> 
> """ 
> If the type definition resolved to by the actual value of the base 
> [attribute] is a complex type definition whose own {content type} is 
> mixed and a particle which is emptiable, as defined in Particle 
> Emptiable (3.9.6) and the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then 
> starting from the simple type definition corresponding to the 
> <simpleType> among the [children] of <restriction> (which must be 
> present) a simple type definition which restricts that simple type 
> definition with a set of facet components corresponding to the 
> appropriate element information items among the <restriction>'s 
> [children] (i.e. those which specify facets, if any), as defined in 
> Simple Type Restriction (Facets) (3.14.6);
> """
> 
> Perhaps there is a simpler way to communicate whatever concept this 
> is trying to express.

We hope so, and the Working Group has stressed to the editors
the importance of making the spec easier to read.  

On the other hand, in the interests of getting necessary 
corrections into a normative version of the Recommendation as 
soon as possible, we have taken the general approach of wishing 
to change errata incorporated into the Second Edition PER only
where they have technical problems, and not for purely
editorial reasons.  Careful reading (and, yes, I admit it does
have to be very careful reading) leads us to believe that the 
syntactic structure of the new text you identify is required
for parallelism with the other items in the list, so that 
recasting it in the obvious way would require recasting the
rest of the list, too.  We'd like to avoid the levels of
review and checking necessary to make sure no new errors were
introduced.  The wording in question does, we believe, now
correctly identify the value of the {content type} property 
of complex type definition under certain conditions which 
are admittedly complicated; we'd had to make it easier to
read but wrong.

It *is* on the editors' list of things to try to recast 
more simply in future drafts of XML Schema 1.1. 

In sum, in the interests of getting 2E out and avoiding
the introduction of new errors, we have not asked the 
editors to redraft the relevant erratum.  We hope for your
understanding of this decision.  If you wish to lodge a
formal object, please let us know within the next week; we
hope to publish the Second Edition before the end of
this month.

best regards,

Michael Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 20:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:42 UTC